By GEORGE CHRISTENSEN
Australians are being sold a lie dressed up in child-friendly packaging. The Albanese government and its eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, want to convince the public that banning under-16s from social media platforms, including YouTube, is about protecting kids from harm. But peel back the layers, and the real agenda becomes unmistakably clear: this is about forcing age verification, eliminating online anonymity, and silencing voices they can’t control.
The plan kicks in December 10, 2025. Social media platforms—YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and others—will be forced to block access to users under 16. The so-called exemption for YouTube, originally made by the government citing its educational value, is now under threat because Inman Grant doesn’t like what kids might see there. Not because of porn, not because of gore, but because of “rabbit holes.”
Yes, rabbit holes. That’s the term she used. What are these rabbit holes? She didn’t say. But everyone knows what she means. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Russell Brand are popular voices pushing back against the establishment narrative. Content that questions the climate hysteria. Videos that explore nationalism, traditional values, masculinity, Christianity. In other words, the sort of ideas Canberra elites want your kids insulated from.
Inman Grant claims children are “powerless to fight” YouTube’s algorithms, which she says drive them into spirals of misinformation and misogyny. But is she really talking about danger or just dissent?
Let’s not forget, this is the same bureaucrat who launched legal action against Elon Musk’s X platform last year, demanding global takedowns of controversial content. She’s not defending kids, she’s defending her power.
The so-called eSafety agenda has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with surveillance. Her own letter to Communications Minister Anika Wells makes it clear: she wants no exemptions. Not for YouTube. Not for anyone. Because exemptions weaken the enforcement mechanism—age verification. And without that, they can’t usher in the real prize: a traceable digital ID for every user.
But here’s the hypocrisy that screams to be acknowledged: if age verification is so vital, why is the eSafety Commissioner not demanding the same for pornographic websites? These sites are scattered across the internet, accessible to any child with a phone and a moment alone. No log-in, no ID, no warning. Just one click and it’s there. If children truly need to be shielded, wouldn’t that be the front line? Or is this crackdown only meant for platforms where ideas, not images, are the threat?
Don’t be fooled. Age verification sounds innocent until you ask: how will they enforce it? Facial recognition? Finger scans? Government-issued ID uploads? Once tech companies are facing $49.5 million fines for letting one kid slip through, the answer’s obvious: they’ll require ID from everyone. And just like that, anonymity dies.
This mirrors COPPA 2.0 in the U.S., which proposes that platforms act on “implied knowledge” of a user’s age. It’s vague, impossible to meet without total surveillance, and deliberately designed to pressure every platform into blanket ID checks. Australia is importing the same approach, and Inman Grant is its most zealous enforcer.
The irony? She admits there’ll be no penalties for children who break the rules. None for the parents either. Why? Because the real targets are the platforms. And through them, all of us. The state doesn’t want to punish your child. They want to control how everyone accesses the internet. This isn’t parenting support. It’s parental replacement.
Opposition voices like Senator Matt Canavan have called this out. “Why does our government think it is their job to decide what people watch and listen to? Who exactly decides what is a ‘rabbit hole’?” He’s right. These are cultural decisions for families, not bureaucratic mandates enforced by surveillance.
And what of the survey driving this push? A vague, opaque study of 2,600 children, asking 10-year-olds about gender identity and sexual orientation, and claiming 40% of them saw something “harmful” on YouTube. Harmful how? The questions aren’t public. The methodology is unclear. Yet it’s being used as the basis for nationwide censorship.
Make no mistake, this is a calculated attempt to seize control of the digital public square. To eliminate private, anonymous communication. To install government oversight into every screen, every app, every interaction. It’s not just about kids, it’s about all of us.
The phrase “for the children” has always been the Trojan horse of tyranny. And this time, it’s carrying a payload of digital ID, surveillance, and speech control.
Australians need to wake up. Because if this goes unchallenged, there won’t just be a ban on YouTube for kids. There will be a permanent ban on freedom online.
